You’re missing the point entirely. The person I was originally responding too was saying that evan though awful things were done to people it’s fine, or justifiable because “millions” benefited from them. If you don’t understand how something like that at its base level can be applicable to modern times, that’s a you issue.

It’s not the specific actions taken or the setting/environment, but the attitude of the ends justifying the means if there’s a net positive.

Oops, got my wires crossed with who I was talking about. But my point still stands.

You can have any opinion that you want, I haven’t said that you couldn’t. I was disagreeing with your opinion and expressing my own, you wombat. That’s how discussion works.

I bet you think you’re taking some sort high road to the effect of “oh I just state the facts, I’m not telling anyone what to think,” while conveniently ignoring the part where the way that you report these facts, or which ones you leave out can very much influence the conclusions people reach.

You stated that Alexander killed many people, but also his actions benefitted millions of people. These two things put together in the way that you did will lead an uninformed person to he conclusion that it’s fine that he killed people because it benefited many others. And maybe that could be true in some contexts, but you completely failed to mention the fact that he didn’t just kill a bunch of people, he executed defeated peoples and sold a whole bunch of people into slavery, which would naturally influence the conclusions a person could come to.

Yes, and? Have you not gotten to the part in your schooling where you look at history to see what can be learnt from it?

So the ends justify the means? Inflicting untold suffering on one group of people is fine if it benefits another one?

I don’t know. I don’t think that’s something to be left for an email.

The fuck are you talking about? It was always used as an insult. Just because more people were willing to call people slits doesn’t mean it was actually acceptable in actual polite company.

I think that’s nothing compared to all the, y’know, irreparable destruction and pollution we do to the to the planet tbh.

What the fuck

For someone who calls Christians hate-mongering, you’re pretty hateful yourself.

It’ll increase demand, which should in theory increase wages for those jobs. A universal basic income is “basic” in the sense that it’s the minimum to survive in society. There will still be plenty of people who want more and are therefore willing to do those jobs.

Guilty enough to deserve death?

What you’re describing is still toxic masculinity and has absolutely nothing to do with toxic femininity. Men that have been hurt by their previous partners or ridiculed for being emotional, is toxic masculinity. This is because men are discouraged from expressing their emotions or seeking support, reinforcing the harmful stereotype that vulnerability is a sign of weakness. Men get hurt by women doing this because of the toxic view many men and women carry about masculinity and male gender roles.

Toxic femininity on the other hand, is a societal expectation placed on women to conform to traditional gender roles and stereotypes, like being passive, nurturing, and submissive.

Yes. And the reason for that is toxic masculinity. That’s the point they were making. They were explaining the why, not the what.

Childcare educator, a large amount of people suddenly wouldn’t be able to work because they have no one to watch their children.

I don’t deny that there is a high upfront cost, but in the long run it is cheaper.

Then don’t make it a hobby? You can just buy the PC and you don’t necessarily have to pour much money into it after.

I might, tennis too.

There’s very little difference.